> 441 
.J3 
^opy 1 



The Problem 



OF THE 



Indifferent Farmer 



ADDRESS BY 

C. C. JAMES 



Before the International Association of Farmers' 

Institutes Workers, at Washington, D.C., 

November 7th, 1910 



THE PROBLEM 

OF THE 

INDIFFERENT FARMER 



ADDRESS BY 

C. C. JAMES 

u 



Before the International Association of Farmers' Institutes 
Workers, at Washington, D.C., November 7th, 1910 



\ 






K /^ 



The Problem of the Indifferent Farmer. 



Adapting a definition of life as given Ijy some American 
pliilosoplier, we may say tliat the life of the people is '^just one 
pi'nblera after another." Some of these problems are attacked 
wiih intelligence and vigor until they are solved. Others are 
a])proached, considered in a more or less casual manner, and then 
turned down for some other problem more attractive. Other 
pi'oblems, big in size and of great importance in the national life, 
are not even met witli ordinary courtesy, but are treated with 
extreme indifference. It would be a reflection upon our intelli- 
gence to put the problein of the indifferent farmer in the last 
class. We are giving it some attention, but, considering its size, 
considering its importance, we must conclude that we are, appar- 
ently, not taking liold of it as yet in a manner likely to solve it 
very soon. We need not take time in discussing the question as 
to whether there is siu'h a problem. We all know the indifEerent 
fanner; he is here on this American continent by the tens of 
thousands. We who are workers in the agricultural field come 
in contact with him. He is to be met with nearly everywhere. 
He is the burden of our existence: he is largely the excuse for our 
office; He has been here since work first began, and one can 
liardly hope that he will ever become entirely extinct. If we had 
no direct experience Avith him. we would have strong suspicions 
of his existence, simply by reading the daily papers, — for are liis 
shortcomings not set forth there from day to day? Frequently, 
the news editor confuses indifference and dishonesty — for you 
know there is that curious streak in us which makes a basket of 
scabby peaches loom as large a.s a carload of faulty rails, and a 
dozen small apples in the middle of the barrel rank with the flaw 
in a fortv foot lirids'c. 



4. 

How big is this problem ? In the Province of Ontario we have 
175,000 farms whose annual productions total about $250,000,- 
000. If by some magic or process of regeneration we could 'turn 
all the indifferent farmers into wideawake, progressive, up-to- 
date farmers, the total production would be easily doubled, and 
it is not heyond the reach of possibility to treble our output. We 
have in Canada, as you have in the United States, a Commission 
for the Conservation of l-Jesources. As far as the Province of 
Ontario is concerned, we are concerned not so much with the 
preservation or conservation of our agricultural resources as with 
the need for expanding and enlarging the agricultural resources 
that nature has given us, and of keeping production up to 
demand. 

Is it worth our w.hile to take hold of this expansion in real 
earnest, that is as though we believed it could be done The 
possibility of adding two or three hundred million dollars yearly 
to our rural income surely makes this a big problem. Let me ask 
right here — Is there any other problem on the American Conti- 
nent that comes into the same class with it? You, gentlemen, 
who are engaged in this field know how it is to be worked out. 
You know the foundation courses iipon which this great wealth 
may be built. These courses are plain and simple: 

1. Drain the soil. 

2. Sow only the be t seed. 

3. Carefully protect and store the products of the fields and 
orchards. 

4. Feed field products only to profitable stock. 

5. Put the finished product on the market in the best form. 
If we could in some way bring the indifferent farmer to the 

knowledge of those five plain, convincing lines of work, we would 
have solved the problem ; all else involved in agricultural improve- 
ment would come easily a? a natural sequence. And what a solving 
of other problems there would be. A man in our Province who 
has been a farmer for many years said to me the other day, 
" Push the drainage of land. Spend money on it. If you 
can get all the farmers to drain their land, you will solve the 
problem of good roads, for they will have money enough to build 



them for theiiTiselves.'' Increase the iiieoiiies of the individual 
farmers and we will have the means at our disposal to renovate, to 
reconstruct, to develop the rural public school system along 
rational lines. And so we might enlarge upon this question along 
many lines. Put more money in the farmers' pockets as the 
result of his improved work and there will be things doing in the 
rural constituency that are now existent largely in the hopes and 
dreams of men who are sometimes called optimists and visionaries. 
We might enlarge upon this. The enrichment of the farm- 
ers, the improvement of the rural schools, the beautifying of the 
rural homes, the increase of social advantages, the quickening of 
JTitelligence, the moral uplift — all coming out of the stirring into 
life of the indifferent farmer. You who are working for and 
among the farmers know as no others do what all this means in 
tiie development of a nation along the highest lines. 

All this line of development looks to be so simple, and therein 
is one of the greatest difficulties — it is its simplicity that makes it 
so difficult. If we could present a problem more intricate and 
more daring, we could expect to set the people to its solution. 
Ix)ok over the great problems that have attracted the people of 
influence, the people of initiative power, the people who control 
the creative forces and the distribution of wealth. This simple 
problem of stirring up the indifferent farmer to activity does not 
as yet appeal to the people as it deserves. Here are two areas of 
land, ten million acres each in extent. The one is occupied by 
farmers, good, bad and. indifferent. The other area is unoccupied, 
it is as nature made it, but it is five hundred miles away. Two 
questions arise — shall we develop the agriculture of the occupied 
area, double its production, double its population, and again 
double its production ; or shall we set to work to build a railroad 
to t-hat unoccupied land, there to repeat the experience of the 
former section — farmers, good, bad and indifferent? You know 
what would be done. Millions would be available for the more 
daring proposition and thousands only for the other. 

It is easier to build a dreadnaught than an agricultural col- 
lege. We can arouse the interest of two continents in solving the 
problem of aerial navigation, but it is difficult to get the people 



to demand — no, let me j^ut it more mildly — it is ditlficult to get 
the people to support enthusiastically the proposition of spending 
]noney freely in teacliing the indifferent farmer how to drain his 
land, wli}' he should use onl}- the best seeds, why he should test his 
dairy cows, why and how he sivould spray his apple trees, and how, 
in short, Jie can increase his income by one thousand dollars a 
year. 

This brings us to the question as to how we are to sohe iJie 
problem of ilie indiffereiit puhlic. You will understand that 
when I refer to the indifferent public I am spealcing in general 
terms. There are persons who have an inspiration as to the 
greatness of this*work, and there are some places where this 
problem is being worked out; but, on the whole, the public are 
more or less indifferent to the importance of the work, judging 
by their actions, or rather inactions. If the development of our 
agriculture means the greatest wealth creation within the nation, 
and if the stirring of the indifferent farmer to better things is the 
ke,y to the situation, why do not our people — manufacturers, bank- 
ers, professional men, business men, and intelligent farmers — 
rise in a mass and demand thait this work he undertaken and car- 
ried through? There are at least two reasons: In the first 
place, there is a too prevalent opinion that work done among and 
for the farmers is a charitable contribution to a class that should 
be able to take care of themselves. Wdiat a woeful misconception 
of this movement! Helping the farmers to larger production and 
to larger life can be justified only on the ground that thereby we 
are contributing to the prosperity and uplift of the whole com- 
munity. A town of 5,000 people is surrounded by a farming 
community. Through the agricultural uplift, $1,000,000 could 
easily be added to the annual production of the surrounding and 
contributing country. Is it conceivable tliat such an addition 
, could he made without touching every banker, every manufac- 
turer, every storekeepei", every doctor, every lawyer, every 
newspaper o^\Tier in the town? First and foremost then it 
seems to me that we must take the i^roblem of the indifferent 
farmer out of the country and bring it into the town and city, 
we must, in addition to discussing it at the Farmers' Institute 



and tlie Farmers" Club, put it up to the Board of Trade, the 
Bankers' Association, the Retail Merchants' Association, and 
even the County Teacliers' Convention. It has been a local ques- 
tion; Ave must make it a national question. We must bring 
people to see tliat it is not charity or local contribution, but 
merely the investment of public funds that will bring ample 
returns to the whole people. 

In the next place, we have not yet succeeded in getting the 
men of influence behind this movement. And I admit, at once, 
that lierein there is much difficulty. "We can get their approval 
and their blessing, but what we want is their support and back- 
ing, in season and out of season. If only we could interest in this 
work a large number of men who have built up the great indus- 
tries of this country, who have planned the great undertakings, 
who have built the railroads, dug the canals, erected factories, 
organized financial institutions, laid pipe lines and strung power 
cables; if we liad a host of men like J. J. Hill of the G-reat 
Xorthern, and President Brown of the Xew York Central Lines, 
men who are able to size up this question not simply as one of 
personal profit, but as one of national importance — ^then we could 
hurry along the movement. What is required is that our people 
and especially those Avho control expenditure and direct public 
energies shall look upon the spending of money for agricultural 
development in the same way as they do the constructing of a 
bridge, the digging of a canal, the building of a railway, as an 
investment of the people's money for the -benefit of the whole 
people. When that condition of affairs arrives, when this agri- 
cultural problem is put on a business hasis, and is considered from 
its national stand|)oint, it will not be a question of — How little 
can we get along with? but, Where and how can we spend more 
money so as to bring good profits to the people as a whole ? 

We are a great people on this side of the Atlantic — at least 
we think we are — but I know nothing more stimulating and more 
corrective for us who are engaged in agricultural work than a 
visit now and then to some of the countries of Europe, especially 
those lying adjacent to the Xorth Sea. Prance, Belgium, Hol- 
lanrl. (rermany, Denmark and Sweden are worth visiting. In 



8 

these countries we see intensive agriculture, farming carried on 
along tine lines of our market gardening, co-operation practised 
along the most successful lines, the best of seeds and the best of 
stock considered none too good for the average farmer. But the 
one thing that impresses you is the general public interest in 
agricultural pursuits, the recognition by all, including the lead- 
ers of state, thait agriculture is a matter of common interest and 
is deserving of the best that can be given. One outcome of this 
is that it is in these countries an education is provided for the 
average farmer that is intended to equip him for ihis life work. 
The indifferent farmer is not so much in evidence in these coun- 
tries as he is in many -sections of this continent. 

Let me again emphasize this point. One of the most 
important factors in the future development of agriculture on 
this continent will be in getting not only the approval of the 
city people in our efforts to upbuild agriculture, but their hearty 
support; more than that, their enforced demand that agriculture 
be assisted and developed as the greatest contributing element in 
■the prosperity of the whole people. We must get the town and 
city people awakened to the possibilities, and to do this we should 
have the powerful support of the press and through it reach the 
city organizations. It is all very well for some of the papers to 
call attention from time to time to inferior farm products that 
find their way to market and to preach a little sermon on the 
subject for the benefit of the farmer; what is wanted is the pro- 
viding of ways and means whereby the farmer can be shown the 
better way. We go about these things too often in the wrong 
way. Let me give you an example. There was held recently in 
the city of Toronto a meeting of Produce Commission Merchants 
to discuss the question of bad eggs. The result of that meeting 
was the passing of a resolution asking the Dominion Minister of 
Agriculture to have enacted stringent legislation against the 
marketing of stale eggs by the farmer. That, of course, was the 
easiest proposal to make, easier to suggest than to carry out. 
One not engaged in the handling of eggs might suggest that the 
merchants have the remedy in their own hands — " refuse to buy 
stale eggs.'' That, however, might upset relations that may not 



be even too jDleasant at all times. But is there not a still better 
"way ? Suppose these merchants had said : " The marketing of 
stale eggs is in the long run bad business for the farmer, it is a 
losing game for the commission merchant, and it is certainly an 
aggravation and a loss to the consumer. Let us ask that the 
farmer be taught the better way." We have only to go to Den- 
mark to see what that better way is. And here I might mention 
that already in two of our counties we are trying out this better 
way, not by legislation, not by preaching, not by scolding, but by 
the enthusiastic missionary work of some men set apart for the 
work, two of whom are the district representatives of our Depart- 
ment, and the practical backing of a big Commission House. 
They are reaching the indiiferent farmers and by a house to house 
canvass are working little short of a miracle, aceoniplishiug 
results that years of legislation would fail to do. Even the sub- 
ject of fresh eggs is important enough to engage the attention of 
statesmen. They certainly think so when they sit down to the 
breakfast table in the morning. It is a big question, too. There's 
millions in it. The egg production of the United States in 1909 
was worth, I understand, considerably over $500,000,000. When 
the United States put up the bars against Canadian farm pro- 
ducts in 1890, they shut out Canadian eggs. At that time we had 
a surplus. Last year eggft from Russia and from China were 
imported into Canada, and while I am writing this the daily 
papers inform us that eggs from Germany are on sale in the city 
of Toronto. Let us stop passing the question by with a joke; let 
us stop .threatening ; let us give the farmer and the farmer's wife 
and their little flock of chickens a fair chance. There is a way 
of doing it and it is worth serious thought and a liberal invest- 
ment of the people's money. Eggs may be laid because the hens 
like to do so, or perhaps because they cannot help it, but let us 
get this into our heads that from the public standpoint they are 
produced for general public consumption. The consumer is as 
much interested as the producer — it is in the general public 
interest that the indifferent farmer be shown the best and most 
profitable way of handling eggs and finishing poultry for mar- 
ket. In short, it is time for the general public to stop criticising, 



10 

to demand that thorough work he done and to see to it that funds 
are provided for the efficient carrying out of 'the work. In other 
words, we need a change of attitude, a new spirit, an awakening 
of the whole people to tlieir co-operation and responsihility in the 
matter. How easy it is to get some great movements under way; 
how difficult to awaken the whole people to an appreciation of 
their direct interest in this agricultural matter. Every once in a 
while a large part of the j^eople get it into their heads that things 
are going wrong and then they do things. We have even known 
them to go to the polls and cast their ballots for the other fellows 
and tliink that thus they are going to set matters right. What we 
need is to get people to think things out to their origin, and 
having thought things out then to do things. 

How are we going to reach and teacli the indifferent farmer? 
This i^ perhaps the important question. You all have your 
answers, for I doubt not there are many. That is the work 3'ou 
are engaged in. That is what brings you here in conference. 
There are two lines in operation in Ontario that I would refer to 
briefly. 

N"ext week we expect to gather together in the Convocation Hall 
of the University of Toronto a thousand women from the farms, 
villages, towns, and even the cities of Ontario. They will be the 
delegates from over three hundred Women's Institutes of our Pro- 
vince, mainly representing the fami homes of Ontario. This is a 
movement the force and energy and regenerating power of which 
no man dare measure. The farmer's home is the centre of his work. 
It is not only his home but also the headquarters of his business 
operations. If we can capture the farmer's home, we believe we 
will have him at our command, to move him, to mould him, to 
inspire him to better things. Gfive us possession of the farmer's 
home and we believe we can revolutionize the farmer's life and 
work. We propose to gain possession of the home through tlie 
farmer's wife. The Women's Institutes have a grand mission to 
perform : it will do Avliat the Farmers' Institutes alone could never 
do.. There are farm improvements which we propose to introduce 
throngh the home, there is a reconstruction of social life that can 
come only through the home, and I can even see signs that the 



11 



rural school may bo enlarg-ed and uplifted by the farmer's wife 
when the farmer himself has failed through his apparent indiffer- 
ence. 

And then we are trying out the work of reaching the indifferent 
farmer by the agricultural missionary, that combination of agri- 
cultural teacher and district representative of the Department of 
Agriculture, which is working so well in Ireland and along certain 
lines in the Southern States. When a young man of practical 
training, equip]icd with tlic morlern expert knowledge and experi- 
ence which a good agricultural college affords, is dropped down 
among a lot of indifferent farmers as a permanent resident, when 
he takes off his co'at and goes to work showing the farmer a better 
way and helping him to make more money at his work, something 
is going to happen and something is already happening wnth us — 
the indifferent farmer is having his eyes opened. Three .years ago 
we started this work in six counties. This year we carried it on 
in sixteen centres. In one county, not only was there indifference, 
there was direct opposition. The county council passed a resolu- 
tion condemning the whole thing as a needless waste of public 
money. To-day there would l)e trouble if we suggested stopping 
the work ; in fact, two other sections of the same county are urging 
the opening of offices and starting similar work in connection with 
their High Schools. 

In carrying on our movement for agricultural uplift in Ontario 
there are three things to be considered : 

1st. The plan. 

2nd. The men and women to carry out the plan. 

3rd. The money to provide the men and women. 

1st. The plan. — We have the Province of Ontario fairly well 
organized for agricultural work. There are 

340 Agricultural Societies. 

64 Horticultural Societies. 
100 Farmers' Institutes. 
164 Farmers' Clubs. 
600 Women's Institutes. 

30 Co-operative Fruit Growers' Associations. 



1? 

26 Local Poultry Associations. 
10 Local Horse Asisociations. 

In addition to the above there are many provincial associaftions 
in connection with dairying, fruit growing, live stock, poultry, 
etc. It is, however, through the local district or county associa- 
tions that the District Eepresentative will be able to carry on hi> 
county work. The above associations are, in the main, composed 
of the enterprising, wide-awake farmers, the men who appreciate 
help, who are asking for help and who, to a large extent, are able 
to help themselves. It is not of these that I am speaking. They 
are available and in many cases are willing and eager to help the 
indifferent farmer, the man who reads but little, who seldom attends 
an institute meeting, who is unmoved by what he hears of others, 
who is to be moved only by the close personal touch and the active 
sympathy aroused through bringing better ways right into his own 
field, his own orchard, his own farm and his o^vn home. These 
associations of active men present a means wliereby demonstration 
work can l>e brought home directly to the farmer by short courses 
of a practical nature. AVhat they require mainly is direction and 
inspiration. The report in one of our leading agricultural papers 
of a conference of representatives of Farmers' Institutes and 
Farmers' Cluhs referred to the District Representatives as follows : 
" These young men are doing things. They took perhaps about 
ten minutos each to give their addresses, but they were full of 
optimism, for they are getting the 'hearts of the people and they are 
already getting results. Institute managers and secretaries who 
have gone home without being impressed by the work of these young 
men have missed procuring the touchstone which will bring success 
to their work." 

2nd. The men. — Here is where the Agricultural College comes 
into the scheme. Our College at Guelph has at the present time 
344 students in its regular course: 1st year, 149; 2nd year, 88; 
3rd year, 57; 4th year, 50; extra, 6. After January 1st there will 
be probably 300 more taking short courses. We expect that band 
of fifty in the fourth year to supply us with the additional men 
required to man the work at the new offices and to supply us with 



13 

assistant in the offices already established. Tlie scheme you see 
is an extension of agricultural work that carries the College to 
every part of the province and brings into co-operation all the forces 
available in all the other branches of the Department of Agricul- 
ture. 

And what about the women? Our problem would be solved much 
more quickly if only we could supplement flie work by having 
trained women missionaries in the rural parts, working in and 
through the Women's Institutes, carrying domestic science instruc- 
tion to all the rural schools and helping to improve the social life 
of the countryside. The Director of Home Economics at Mac- 
donald Institute, which is part of our Agricultural College, has 
her plans all ready; she has a' large band of young women train- 
ing for such work: all that is needed for carrying out her part or 
the plan is monei/. 

3rd. The money. — We have this year about $780,000 to spend 
in agricultural work in Ontario. To carry this work into every 
county and district of the province, to man all the branches of the 
Department and meet the requirements of the Agricultural College 
to keep pace with demands, we need approximately $250,000 more 
annually. At first this looks like a big sum, but in comparison 
with an annual output of $250,000,000 from 175,000 farms it is 
not so large. We are now spending on agricultural improvement 
just thirty cents apiece yearly for every person in the province. 
What we need is just ten cents apiece more. Shall we get it ? Of 
course we shall if we make out a good case and public opinion gets 
behind it. We can get public opinion behind it if we can show 
results. These are coming. In fact, they are here for those who 
will take the pains to look for them. We are trying to make them 
so plain that it will be impossible not to see them. 

The Dominion Government could give us this amount without 
missing it. If the Government of Canada were to divide only 
$1,000,000 annually among the different provinces for the extension 
of agricultural work, there would be an immediate expansion of 
work that would show itself in increased customs receipts. I believe 
that every dollar so invested would be returned many times over in 
increased customs. The business man is shrewd who knows how 



u 

to invest his surplus cash so as to produce more. Sometimes it 
pays him to borrow to carry out his plans. Our governments 
should follow the example of the successful business man. As far 
as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, it is not saying 
Avhere the money should come from. It has the plan, the men can 
be found, the work can be done, results can be had, if only the 
money is forthcoming. 

To bring this question to the attention of representative bodies 
has been the concern of some of us of the Department for years past, 
but particularly during the past three years. We have talked on it 
to Canadian Clubs, the Manufacturers' Association, Young jNIen's 
Church Clubs, Eetail ]\[erehants' Associations, the Press Club, and 
even to the Daughters of the Empire. The Chairman of the Cana- 
dian Commission on Conservation of Eesources is taking a deep 
interest in the matter, and now we understand that the Boards of 
Trade of Ontario are going to consider it. There will likely be 
something doing. 

Waken up the indifferent farmer and you develop one of the 
greatest assets of the country. It is not like taking gold or silver 
out of the ground never to be replaced ; it is not like cutting down 
trees with the hope that others will grow up in the next fifty years ; 
it is not like hauling fish out of the water that someone may be 
fed; no, it is better than all these, for you are bringing into pro- 
ductivity a living asset. T know no work that any country on this 
continent can engage in that promises bigger returns for everyone 
than the rational stimulating and helping of the indifferent farmer 
to better ways and better living. The l)anker wishes the farmer to 
produce more, because it is upon the accumulation of his earnings 
that our banks depend; the railways want more stuff to haul to 
and fro; the manufacturer wishes the demands of tlie farmers to 
be increased ; the storekeeper is looking for the increase of purchas- 
ing power in the farmer; and the country school teacher is hoping 
for better pay — all classes want more money in circulation. Then 
why, as a people, do we not get down to the consideration of this 
question in a nmnner comporting witii its importance? Let us 
devise things not from the narrow standpoint of the needy farmer, 
but, having in view the national importance of tlie question, put 



15 

into it some of the energy and the hrains and the money that we 
have put into transportation questions and city expansion. If we 
could get our legislators and our city millionaires to turn their eyes 
towards the rural parts and take hold of the question in earnest, 
tliere would be a national development in this country that was 
never dreamed of by the most ardent enthusiast. Let us keep in 
mind and compel others to pay attention to the regeneration of the 
indifferent farmer, for he is the greatest undeveloped asset of 
either Canada or the United States. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

ill Hill Hill Hill mil mil mil mil mil nil 



003 188 755 ^ 



